Skip to main content

tv   FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace  FOX  August 10, 2014 10:00am-11:01am PDT

10:00 am
i'm chris wallace. president obama says air strikes in iraq could go on for months as he seeks to contain the threat from isis. earlier this week, owhen irq cried to the world, there is no one coming to help, today america is coming to help. >> as the u.s. turns to the fight, we'll get the latest on what's happening. retired four-star general jack keane breaks down the military operation and we'll discuss whether president obama is doing too little or too much with senators lindsey graham and ben cardin. plus, for a president who campaigned on getting out of iraq, how big is this reversal
10:01 am
of policy? >> as commander in chief, i will not allow the united states to be dragged into fighting another war in iraq. >> our sunday group weighs in on whether mr. obama can limit our involvement. then american companies renounce their corporate citizenship to save big money in taxes. the head of the business roundtable, john engler, debates senator chris coons on whether that's unpatriotic. and our power player of the week. ivanka trump, on taking the family empire to new heights. >> i represent the feminine voice of an otherwise more masculine brand. >> all right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. president obama says the campaign of air strikes and humanitarian air drops he ordered this week is, quote, a long term project that could go on for months. but he maintains there are strict limits to our involvement
10:02 am
in iraq. today, we want to analyze the u.s. combat mission in depth. retired four-star general jack keane will lay out the battlefield. we'll hear from two leading senators, but first, senior white house foreign affairs correspondent wendell goler has the latest developments. wendell. >> chris, the president says there are several objectives in the iraq campaign and not all of them are under the control of the u.s. and its allies. the first is to defend the u.s. consulate in erbil where there are several hundred marines and to stop the attacks on refugees on sinjar monuntain. the u.s. has conducted a number of air strikes on isis military pieces firing on civilians. mr. obama said the military is confident it can protect the refugees but soon enough and likely with the help of iraqi and kurdish forces they'll have to form a corridor to get tens of thousands of refugees safely off the mountain. >> the next step, which is going
10:03 am
to be complicated logistically, is how do we give safe passage for people down from mountain and how do we locate them so they're safe. that's the kind of coordination we need to do internationally. >> the president spoke with the leaders of germany, france, and britain about joining the effort to deliver food and water to the trapped refugees though probably not joining the fighting. meanwhile, he suggests though he doesn't say so openly, iraqi president nuri al maliny needs to give up his quest for another term. he blamed maliki's bias against sunnis and kurds for fueling the isis rebellion. he said iraq has made progress naming a president, but it will need a government all iraqis can buy into to stop driving the sunnis from joining the isis forces to get them to help defeat them. chris. >> wendell goler traveling with the president in martha's vineyard.
10:04 am
thanks for that. joining us now at the map to break down the military situation in iraq is retired four-star army general and fox news military analyst jack keane. general, as you sit there, show us what isis' position is right now in northern iraq from mt. sinjar in the west to the mosul dam all the way to erbil in the east. >> certainly, the red diagonal indicates isis. you can see they dominate almost all of northern iraq and they extend over the serious border. what is in question is mt. sinjar. they control everything around there, all the routes leading up to the mosul dam to the north and extending to kurdistan, and erbil is in question in where the air strikes are supporting. >> so where are the u.s. air strikes so far, and what have they been able to accomplish? >> sure, friday night, the air strikes went in here in the vicinity of erbil to stop any potential assault on erbil. they were targeting mortars, artillery, et cetera, and the
10:05 am
last two air strikes on saturday and also today are taking place in the vicinity of mt. sunjuinj for the same reason. we're targeting isis capability on the ground, truck convoys, et cetera. >> at this point, we're taking out individual artillery pieces or convoys or mortars. this is not any kind of a concerted air campaign. >> that's a critical point. this is a defensive air strike campaign. largely declined to protect erbil, u.s. presence, and protect certainly the refugees of mt. sinjar. it is not taking away isis' freedom of movement or its initiative. so you can understand, there are five attacks taking place as we speak right now by isis. they have total initiative and total freedom of movement. in kirkuk, they're conducting two attack s north of baghdad, 0 miles north of tutreat, in
10:06 am
mossad, and also south of baghdad, and they're attempting to cede the haditha dam which is very important to them. they have freedom of movement and the initiative, accept in t except in the area of erbil and sinjar mountain. >> to button it up, are we rolling back isis or containing them in limited area snz. >> we're containing them in limited areas. to change the nature of the campaign, the president would have to change the orders to the pillitary. they would have to destroy command and control and logistic units. then it would change in scale. it would then begin to attack isis in multiple locations at the same time. >> we're not doing that now. general keane, thank you so much. now let's get reaction to the new u.s. role in iraq from two key senators. first, lindsey graham of south carolina. senator, after president obama
10:07 am
declared his new policy of air strikes and humanitarian air drops, you sent out this tweet. let's put it up on the screen. the actions announced tonight will not turn the tide of battle. but president obama says we can't do that. we can't roll back isis, take the offensive measures that general keane was talking about, until we get an inclusive government in baghdad so all of the factions in that country are joining in the fight. >> that's not accurate. when i look at the map that the general keane described, i think of the united states. i think of an american city in flames because of the terrorist ability to operate in syria and iraq. the director of national security, the fbi director, the director of homeland security, has said that the isis presence in syria where hundreds of americans and thousands of european fighters have gone, represents a direct threat to the united states. and now their enclave in iraq. so mr. president, you have never
10:08 am
once spoken directly to the american people about the threat we face from being attacked from syria, now iraq. what is your strategy to stop these people from attacking the homeland? they have expressed a desire to do so. there's no political reconcilization in baghdad going to protect the american homeland. that has to be a commander in chief with a strategy and a vision. this commander in chief has no strategy, he has no vision. this is a situation of where he knows better than everybody else. he was told you should get engaged in syria three years ago by his national security teammateam. he said no. his military commander said you should leave troops in iraq as an insurance policy and he got the no. >> what do you think we're accomplishing with these very targeted very limited air strikes against an individual artillery piece in erbil who are a specific vehicle outside mt. sinjar? >> a bad news story.
10:09 am
he's trying to avoid a bad news story on his watch. this is not a replacement for a strategy to deal with an existential threat to the homeland. to every member of congress, you've been told by every major intelligence leader in our nation that we're threatened. the homeland is threatened by the presence of isil in iraq and syria. to change that threat, we have to have a sustained air campaign in syria and iraq. we need to go on offense. there is no force within the middle east that can neutralize or contain or destroy isis without at least american air power. mr. president, be honest with the american people about the threats we face to the members of congress who say stop, what is your alternative if we stop to protecting the homeland? >> but after getting all u.s. troops out of iraq back in 2011, the president made it very clear on thursday when he announced it and again yesterday before he went to martha's vineyard, we
10:10 am
are not getting back into another war, another full-out campaign in iraq. take a look. >> as commander in chief, i will not allow the united states to be dragged into fighting another war in iraq. and so even as we support iraqis as they take the fight to these terrorists, there is no american military solution to the larger crisis in iraq. >> senator graham, are you saying we should go back to war in iraq? >> i'm saying that iraq and syria combined represent a direct threat to our homeland. the day the president raised his right hand to become president for a second time, his constitutional responsible as commander in chief trumped a political promise. what is going on in washington when the fbi director, when the head of national intelligence, the cia, the homeland security secretary, tells every member of congress, including the president, we're about to be attacked in a serious way
10:11 am
because of the threat emanating from syria and iraq. his responsibility as president is to defend this nation. if he does not go on the offensive against isis, isil, whatever you want to call these guys, they're coming here. this is just not about baghdad. this is just not about syria. it's about our homeland. and if we get attacked because he has no strategy to protect us, then he will have committed a blunder for the ages. >> but you know, president obama likes to say what happens next? what happens the day after? if we go into a full-fledged air campaign against isis, as you say, both in iraq and in syria, then we're in the middle of two civil wars in iraq and in syria. do we really want to do that? do we really want to go back full-fledged intheo these two countries? we know how iraq turned out. that wasn't so great? >> do you really want to have
10:12 am
america attacked? you have people on the ground slaughtering christians. they have four goals. to make every muslim bend to their will, to destroy their christian population in the middle east, to drive us out, and to eventually destroy israel. here's my statement to the president. mr. president, your own people are telling you we face an attack on this region. your game plan, the actions you're taking, cannot protect us. there is no substitute for america being involved in terms of eradicating isis. if we don't hit them in syria, you'll never solve the problem in iraq. three years ago, mr. president, you were told by your national security team, get involved, arm the rebels because this problem will grow. you said no. you have made many, many bad bets. your strategy is failing. you told us bin laden is dead, we're safe. since bin laden has died, there are more terrorist organizations with more safe havens, with more money, more weapons and more capabilities to attack the homeland than there was before 9/11. mr. president, if you don't adjust your strategy, these people are coming here.
10:13 am
>> president obama bristled saturday when he was asked about the fact that he had pulled all u.s. troops out and was that responsible for the spread of isis. he said, look, it was iraq that didn't want to make the deal for a carry-on status of forces agreement. take a look at what the president said. >> that entire analysis is bogus. and is wrong. but gets frequently pedaled around here by folks who oftentimes are trying to defend previous policies that they themselves made. >> question, is that a bogus argument by people who were wrong about iraq in the first place? i would suggest he would suspect yes? >> i'm telling the president you're rewriting history at your own convenience. you got the answer you wanted. you promised to get us out of iraq and you were hell bent to get out of iraq. when everybody told you you need to leave a force behind, you made it impossible for the iraqis to say yes. you authorized us getting out of
10:14 am
iraq, and during the debate with governor romney, governor romney suggested i could support 10,000 troops like the president intends to leave behind, and the president said in the debate, i'm not leaving troops behind. i'm not getting entangled in iraq again. you're rewriting history. >> senator graham, thank you. thank you for coming in. now let's bring in ben cardin of maryland who sits on the foreign relations committee. senator cardin, you heard senator graham and his very strong opinions. what's your reaction? >> i have a great deal of respect for senator graham. i just disagree with him. i agree with the president. there is not a u.s. military solution to this issue. we have a limited mission the president has authorized to deal with the humanitarian crisis, and i support that mission. we're protecting u.s. interests as far as the safety of personnel in the northern part of iraq. that's our limited mission, but we're not going to use our military to take care of what
10:15 am
the iraqis should be taking care of. if you're looking at the real cause here, the real cause is that the iraqi government has not performed the way it should to protect the rights of all iraqis. we are not going to get in the middle of a civil war and use american military where it should be iraqis taking care of their own needs. >> i'm going to get to the threat of isis in a moment, but you have reservations about our getting involved at all, i know, and in fact, back in may, you joined a number of other senators seeking to repeal the authorization of the u.s. of military force which was the resolution that allowed the invasion of iraq in 2003 in the first place. is president obama, from what you have heard, is he getting too far involved in this? when you hear him talk about this thing, a long-term project that could take months, are you concerned about this becoming an open-ended commitment? >> well, i disagreed with our invasion of iraq 13 years ago. i didn't think there was a
10:16 am
military need at that point, that iraq was not a direct danger to the united states. i support the president's limited mission here. we have a potential genocide that could take place where the united states at the request of iraq can do something about it, working with the international community. i think we're right to take action. so i support this humanitarian issue. i think we've got to be very careful that we're not drawn in to the use of our military in a civil war taking place in iraq. >> now, the president is talking about getting drawn in if you get an inclusive government in baghdad. if maliki steps down and you get buy-in from the shiites and the kurds and the sunnis. one, would you support that? two, what do you make of the fact they were supposed to by the constitution, the parliament was supposed to meet today to choose a prime minister and they couldn't even agree to do that? >> well, no, i'm -- i would not support drawing american troops in to do what the iraqis have to do for themselves.
10:17 am
i would oppose that. i do support this humanitarian mission. i think the president is right. the iraqis look at america as being able to help prevent a genocide, and we should do that. working with the international community. we have a game plan in that regard. what we will not do is become the iraqi air force, as the president has said. and obviously, we've got to be extremely concerned we're not drawn into that type of military action. >> yeah, but now let's get to the point that senator graham raised, and that is what about isis? you have this group that is even more radical, even more deadly than al qaeda. they have established a save haven, what they would call a caliphate in the heart of the middle east, all the way from northwestern syria to central iraq. are you not concerned that they could become a major threat to first the region and eventually to the u.s. homeland? >> i'm very concerned about all these extremist groups that
10:18 am
believe that it's their way and everyone has to conform to their beliefs and have no respect for people who have different views. absolutely i'm very concerned about isis and their impact in that region. and the united states working with the international community needs to contain and hope fame eliminate that type of extremist. the way to do it is first and foremost have a government iraq so moderate sunnis don't find the only choice they have is to line up with extremist groups. let's have a representative government to reach out to the community and cut off the support for extremists. >> what about the role of the united states? do you think we're going to role back isis without a must-getter u.s. air prengs? >> i think what we need to do is make sure the iraqis do what we can that the iraqis fulfill their commitment for a representative government to work first with the moderate seenies to try to eliminate some
10:19 am
of the support groups working now to eliminate isis. >> you're not answering my question, which is is there a role for the u.s. air force, for the military air strikes to take out isis? >> i don't think we can take out isis from a military point of view from the use of our air strikes. that's not going to solve the problem. the fundamental problem is whether the iraqis believe they have a representative government so that sunnis feel comfortable with the government in baghdad. i think that's going to be the key to cutting off the type of permanent support that isis could otherwise have. >> senator cardin, thank you. thanks for joining us today. also a pleasure to talk with you, sir. >> thank you. up next, president obama has set strict limits on the u.s. air campaign in iraq. our sunday panel joins the debate about what it will accomplish. plus, what would you like to ask the panel? go to facebook or twitte twitter @foxnewssunday and we
10:20 am
may use your question on the air. [ male announcer ] meet mary.
10:21 am
she loves to shop online with her debit card. and so does bill, an identity thief who stole mary's identity, took over her bank accounts, and stole her hard earned money. unfortunately, millions of americans just like you learn all it may take is a little misplaced information to wreak havoc on your life. this is identity theft, and no one helps stop it better than lifelock. if mary had lifelock's bank account alerts, she could have been notified in time to help stop the damage. lifelock has the most comprehensive identify theft protection available, helping guard your social security number, your money, your credit, even the equity in your home. you even get a $1 million service guarantee. that's security no one can beat. ♪ and use promo code: notme for 60 days of lifelock
10:22 am
identity theft protection and get a document shredder free. ♪ or go to lifelock.com/notme. when countless innocent people are facing a massacre and when we have the ability to prevent it, the united states cannot just look away. that's not who we are. we're americans. we act, we lead.
10:23 am
>> less than three years after declaring the iraq war over, president obama justifies the u.s. going back in, at least to block isis from taking over more territory. and it's time now for our sunday group. syndicating columnist george will, jackie kucinich of the washington post, radio talk show host laura ingram, and ron forn yae from the national journal. george, what do you think of the air campaign the president launched this week and to pick up the phrase he used, is this a case of america acting and leading. >> he's now the fourth consecutive president to engage militarily with iraq. this time, the question is what is the mission? if the mission is simply to protect the kurds and others, then that's one thing. we're actually obligated under the genocide convention, which is right here, and which ronald reagan signed in 1988, since genocide is a crime under international law, which today, the signatories undertake to
10:24 am
prevent them to punish, so there's this kind of statutory reason for this. on the other hand, that seems to concede the advances that isil has made, there is there is no talk really about getting rid of their conquest of territory there. i don't know about you. i was struck by jack keene saying they're attacking south of baghdad. that means they've got them surrounded. it means, a, what is left of the iraqi state? the president says much depends on what we do on there being an inclusive fumpt in baghdad. while he's engineering an inclusive government in baghdad, the rift of the government doesn't seem to run much beyond the suburbs of baghdad. >> we asked you for questions for the panel and got this on facebook from bruce. he writes i'm happy we're helping those on the mountain, but to think that limited military strikes are going to make a difference is silly. you go in to win or don't go in
10:25 am
at all. jackie, i mean, that seems to be, and we heard this in the debate between senators cardin and senator graham, what's our mission there, is it too much, is it too little? how do you answer bruce? >> i think it's striking that there's no end date to these strikes. so the president, it was kind of vague, and i think it was on purpose so they could potentially expand this later. i also think benghazi is looming very large here. i think particularly with the american consulate and erbil. if that falls, then they have a humanitarian crisis that's even bigger and the problem of getting personnel out, so there are a lot of things. it makes sense what their administration is doing right now. as far as putting boots on the ground, the president's hand was forced even starting the air strikes, i think. i don't think he really wanted to go into iraq again. this is the first step. we'll see what happens. >> laura, it was clear to anybody who was watching on thursday night that this president really didn't want to do what he was doing. really didn't want to go back into a combat situation. even from the air.
10:26 am
in iraq. wasn't happy about doing it, and was trying to come up with a very carefully calibrated, limited policy. how did he do? >> i think it's really hard. i don't think you can judge how he did right now. we're almost in an impossible situation, right? the american people really have no appetite for america to re-engage. they don't want us to go into syria. obama did go into syria. that red line was crossed, obama said no, the american people said no. after iraq and afghanistan, our own country, middle class is struggling. what are we going to do, what are we going to accomplish? he's reacting to that, but also as the washington post pointed out yesterday, he's now i think reluctantly seeing the perils of inaction. if we do nothing here, then what? let's say iraq does fall, which i think is a possibility? iraq may fall, no boots on the ground, not going to happen, can't happen. that's very empowering to isil. if they know american troops are
10:27 am
not going to be on the ground at all, and i'm not saying i want them here, they know they get an artillery position hit like yesterday and they flood back in, like yesterday. they have that hidroelectric dam right now. if isil decides to flood much of southern baghdad, can reach much of baghdad, that in and of itself can be devastating. and about 3 million christians lived in iraq in peace. they need help, desperate in need of help. christians have been suffering in iraq for several years now. and i think our government, even the bush government, hasn't done enough to protect those religious minorities as well. this inattention to what's happening on the ground in iraq has been happening for some time. i don't know if there's a good solution right now, which is a horrible thing to say for the united states of america. >> ron, as i pointed out with general keene, we're literally hitting one artillery piece, one convoy at a time. does it make sense to have such a limited mission, such a
10:28 am
limited role or should we either be doing more or either be doing less? >> i think we're missing the big question. first it's hard to admit it, but our country was not honest about how it got into iraq and not smart about how we got out of iraq. most americans want something very limited. save the people on the mountain, on the ground, that's very strat strategic. the problem is this is a very ruthless, strategic, well-funded group of terrorists. i even hate to say the world group terrorists. >> a state, got its own government and army. >> its mission is to take us out. we're going to get hit. they're coming after us and we're going to get hit if we don't figure out how to stop them. short term, yes, the president is doing fine. long term, this is a president who underestimated isis, he called them jv. he underestimated putin.
10:29 am
he underestimated several other areas. he's been the commander in chief or the underestimator in chief. i don't want him to underestimate. we can't afford the president to underestimate this threat. i also don't want him to overreact. we have done that before and it got us into this mess. it's an awfully tough thing to do. i wish i was more confident that the president understood the threat to the country. >> you heard senator lindsey graham. what do you say when he says forget about political recsi reconciliation in baghdad. if you consider this caliphate. they call themselves the islamic fate. if they sfb that, we're going to bemoan that for decades the way we bemoan what happened with al qaeda in afghanistan. >> we have fought for 13 years, the longest war in our history in afghanistan, why? because it's in our national
10:30 am
interest not to have a large area which is a safe haven where terrorists can plot against us. iraq now, after eight years in iraq, 2001 to 2011 is becoming exactly what we went into afghanistan to prevent. remember colin powell's rule. if you break it, you own it. we broke two states in the middle east. we broke by our policy the state of libya, we broke by our policy the state of iraq, and we own the rubble. >> we own the rubble. does that mean we have the responsibility for fixing it? >> no, we have a responsibility to learn the lesson at long last that we can't fix states like this. >> let me put it this way, 13 years ago almost exactly to this date, president bush got a memo saying al qaeda wants to attack america. >> and we learned yesterday, today, more details about how al qaeda is kind of disintegrating right into the islamic state. al qaeda has become the islamic state. george is right, i think we try to do all these things in iraq. now iraq is worse off.
10:31 am
i mean, i hate to say that, but iraq is worse than before we went into iraq. christians are gone. there's no sense of order at all. saddam hussein is gone. that's a good thing, but what's left? a more emboldened islamic state. not contained apparently even by u.s. air strikes. >> we have to take a break but we're going to continue the conversation. up next, the situation in iraq, just one of many hot spots president obama faces now. what have we learned about his president obama faces now. what have we learned about his broader foreign policy. when folks think about what they get from alaska, president obama faces now. what have we learned about his bthey think salmon and energy. but the energy bp produces up here creates something else as well: jobs all over america. engineering and innovation jobs. advanced safety systems & technology. shipping and manufacturing. across the united states, bp supports more than a quarter million jobs. when we set up operation in one part of the country, people in other parts go to work. that's not a coincidence. it's one more part of our commitment to america.
10:32 am
then boom... what happened? stress, fun, bad habits kids, now what? let's build a new, smarter bed using the dualair chambers to sense your movement, heartbeat, breathing. introducing the sleep number bed with sleepiqtm technology. it tracks your sleep and tells you how to adjust for a good, better and an awesome night. the difference? try adjusting up or down. you'll know cuz sleep iq™ tells you. only at a sleep number store, mattresses with sleepiq start at just $999.98. know better sleep with sleep number.
10:33 am
10:34 am
10:35 am
our military is so effective that we can keep a lid on problems. it can only last if the people in these countries themselves are able to arrive at the kinds of political accommodations and compromise that any civilized society requires. >> after authorizing air strikes in iraq, president obama offers a broader insight into his thinking about what u.s. power can accomplish, and we're back now with the panel. george, what have you learned this week, if anything, about obama foreign policy, about his very grudging willingness to use force and the strick limits he puts on it? >> we learned three things from this extraordinarily and alarmingly interview with the "new york times." first, he said he wants a set e settlement in iraq and the middle east where there are no victors. isis cuts people's heads off.
10:36 am
they say they have to be exterminated because they're devil worshiper. it's hard to have a relationship with people like this. second, he said we have a strategic interest in pushing back isil. back to where? it's not as though they emanated from instate and are occupying some other states. they're home now. we're not going to push them back with air power. one of the consistent themes of our military experience of the last 100 years is the limitations of air power, no matter how spectacular some of its faeths can be. finally, he said, and this is re related, about russia, he said we want to go back to a cooperative relationship with russia. again, no talk about russia giving back the crimea. again, it's a conceding the advances our enemies have made and trying to be nice to them. >> as george pointed out, the president did an interview with tom friedman, columnist for the "new york times," which was very interesting and very wide
10:37 am
ranging. in that interview, he said perhaps his biggest foreign policy regret was in libya, that we got involved in toppling gadhafi but didn't have a good answer for what happened next. take a look. >> i think we underestimated, our european partners underestimated the need to come in full force. if you're going to do this, then it's the day after gadhafi is gone. so that's a lesson that i now apply every time i ask the question, should we intervene militarily? do we have an answer the day after? >> jackie, is that sensible caution or is that paralysis by analysis? >> i think he made ron's point, exactly what he said. he's underestimated in libya. i think one of the interesting things is the president has largely followed what the american want on this. they don't want intervention. and yet his polling on foreign policy used to be a huge victory for him.
10:38 am
now it's not. now it's down low with obamacare, and it's just striking. they still don't like what he's doing. >> you know, laura, this is not george w. bush. it's not ronald reagan. this is a president who is very cautious about the u.s. of military force. after all the problems of the last decade or so, is that a bad thing? >> well, he ran on getting us out of iraq and on the tails of public dissatisfaction with the wars in iraq and faek. he ran on the fact he was historic, and he's obligated to follow down that path. the problem is reality comes and hits you in the face. i think mitt romney said during the campaign it's almost like the president is managing our decline. our economic decline of the middle class, refusal to really engage with republicans on a lot of issues. now it seems like that management of our decline has really seeped into our foreign policy, where with putin, i have a great interest in russia, and putin moves into ukraine, and
10:39 am
we're very slow-footed to raeth. we're going to have sanctions. sanctions mean nothing. the europeans have a north stream and south stream pipeline going into europe. you'll never get them from europe as long as they know they have to rely on inthe leaders. we have a strategic interest in rolling back russia. we can't just say we're going to sit down with putin and everything is going to be okay. we have to show unity of strength, at least among our allies and now that's gone away. >> in the "new york times" interview, the president does talk about putin and russia and ukraine, and he says this. at one point, he says he could invade, almost sounding like he's a bystander watching a train wreck happen. your thoughts about presidential strength and weakness and the use of force and the willingness to use it. sometimes, if i may, as somebody who covered ronald reagan for
10:40 am
six years, sometimes -- well, to use his line, peace through strength. sometimes you get more peace if people think you're willing to use force and if you do it on occasion. >> as someone who covers bill clinton and george bush, the american people don't want intervention, but the american people also don't want weakness, and they don't want to be attacked. he has to deal with the world as we have it, not as the world as we want it. three things struck me. he's going to invade? that's a pretty big deal, mr. president. what's the next sentence? two, the comment about no vic r victors and no vanquish. that's a funny thing to say for a president who is all about -- >> in the campaign. >> exactly, the white house was all about victors. that's a different issue. also, tom's lead -- i thought it was a wonderful interview, but tom's lead said it's clear the president has a take on the world. i read that story three or four times. i can't find the president's take on the world. that's a problem the american public has. that shows weakness, if you
10:41 am
can't let us know what's going on and where you're taking us and how you're going to protect us from this new threat. >> thank you, panel. see you next sunday. what do you think? should the u.s. go back to iraq? up next, some american companies are renouncing their corporate citizenship and relocating overseas to save millions in taxes. should the president use executive action to stop them? ñw?
10:42 am
10:43 am
10:44 am
they're called tax inversions and it's a growing trend. american companies moving their tax home to a nation with lower rates to save millions. president obama calls it unpatriotic and is considering executive action to stop it. we'll have two experts on to debate the issue, but first,
10:45 am
peter barnes explainis how it works. >> more u.s. companies are moving their headquarters overseas through mergers with foreign firms which can save them a boat load in corporate taxes. their top tax rate can drop from 35% in the u.s. to on average 20% overseas. house democrats say 75 companies have completed so-called corporate inversions since 1994. senate democrats say as many as 25 more could do it this year alone, costing the treasury more than $19 billion over the next decade. it's all legal under current u.s. tax law, which the president wants to change. but some republicans say it's more an election year ploy to make inversions about economic patriotism and help democrats in fall elections. >> these counts are saying, we found a great loophole. if you just flip your citizenship to another country, even though it's just a paper
10:46 am
transaction, we think we can get you out of paying a whole bunch of taxes. >> senate democrats are expected to hold a vote on inversion legislation when they return from their summer recess in september, but the measure is likely to die in the house. chris? >> peter, thank you. joining us now to debate this, the president of the beusiness roundtable, john engler, and chris coons who is on the budget committee. gentleman, welcome. president obama is coming down hard on these companies that carry out these inversions, saying that they show a lack of what he calls economic patriotism. take a look. >> right now, a loophole in our tax laws makes this totally legal. and i think that's totally wrong. you don't get to pick which rules you play by or which tax rate you pay, and noorth should these companies. >> governor engler, i fully understand that companies can save a lot of money by doing this and that it is legal, but his duty to shareholders, does
10:47 am
that trump duty to country? >> they have to follow the law. as the president said, they have been following the law, but what the inversion is is an indication of how out of date our tax code is. we haven't touched it in 30 years. and since that time, everybody in the world has been changing their tax code. we've not got a tax code that is more favorable to foreign headquarters companies than our own, and we ought to have the tax code in the united states that's the best in the world that helps create the most jobs. >> i guess the question i'm asking you, in the current system, with the current law, you don't have a problem with an american company doing a paper transaction to declare it's an irish kraecompany or a swiss coy to save millions of dollars. >> what i favor is comprehensive reform. >> i'm asking if you have a problem? >> i have a problem with a law that is so outdated and archaic. what we're seeing is the inability to combeat the way we
10:48 am
should. we think the comprehensive approach that has been approached is a good starting point. >> let me bring in senator coons. terms like unpatriotic, corporate deserter, but if you're the ceo of the company and someone says this is the law and you can save hundreds of millions of dollars and give it back to your shareholders, what is the problem? >> they're not following their duty as americans, as folks to contribute to carrying their costs the burdens of the company. you're an american-headquartered company because you're taking advantage of our intellectual property protection, our military, our schools, our universities, our research, and i do have a problem, and i think most americans do, with the idea we have a corporate tax code that's riddled with loopholes, that's badly out of date and unfair. i agree with john that the real solution is to move to comprehensive tax reform so we have a more competitive tax system. but frankly, like the president, i have a problem with a mostly
10:49 am
american company using a tax loophole to avoid paying their fair share. >> let's talk about the corporate tax code because ceos will say fine, we would love to stay in the company, but i have to pay a 35% top corporate tax rate here and a 12.5% top corporate tax rate, for instance, in ireland. you guys in congress have talked about it for years and haven't done anything. >> let's give credit to the president. they called to reduce the corporate tax rate to 28%. and we did get real and strong proposals from chairman camp and chairman bacchus. we need to come together. congress has a responsibility to deal with this issue. in the long-term in the next two year or two, and in the short term, i hope we'll take reductions. it could cost us $18 billion to $20 billion. we're losing corporate headquarters, jobs and resources. >> governor engler, democrats say they're willing to cut corporate taxes but republicans
10:50 am
insist if you're going to do that, you also need to cut individual tax rates because so many of these companies file as individuals, smaller companies, not in the corporate tax rate. are you really going to hold up corporate tax reform to get the individual tax rate lowers? >> i think business tax reform comprehensively without getting into individual rates. >> even for companies? >> even for companies. i think you can approach this in a comprehensive way. that's what chairman camp attempted to do. he had a 25% rate for manufacturing companies, whether they were incorporated or not. i think that this is an opportunity for the president to lead. i think the call ought to be to secretary lew. let's get chairman camp and chairman wyden in a rule over august and september. we could have something to go when we get back. let's not spend the time at treasury trying to come up with fixes. >> let's talk about that because in the absence of any agreement
10:51 am
on legislation, president obama is in this area as well, talking about possibly taking executive action to stop tax inversions. what makes this particularly interesting is just last month, treasury secretary lew said that was not possible. take a look. >> we do not believe we have the authority to address this inversion question through administrative action. if we did, we would be doing more. >> senator coons, that was just a few weeks ago. what's changed? >> the larger point is we should act in congress. >> i know, but i'm asking you why was it in mid-july that the treasury secretary said he didn't have the power for sxekative action to stop inversions and now the president says they do? >> there are some technical areas where treasury can continue to apply the impact of the 2004 law. let me be clear on this point. in 2004, a republican congress and a republican president joined with democrats in the house and senate to pass a law to address inversions as a
10:52 am
problem. when it was first emerging. there are provisions in the law the fretreasury is looking hard. they would prefer that congress acts in a bipartisan way as they did a decade ago to stem the job loss and revenue loss, but in the absence of action, i think the treasury will step up and do something to top the bleeding. >> governor engler, if president obama and treasury, if they take executive action, will you try to stop them? and you're a former politician, former governor. isn't this a good issue for the democrats because they can say we're on the side of the little guy, the americans, and republicans are on the side of the big corporations trying to spend m save money by thinking they're irish or swiss? >> i think one thing all americans are tired of are all the games. they want a solution. it's very hard, they can tweak,
10:53 am
but why not spend the time and fix the problem. it's not a little problem. our rate is 35%. the whole inversion doesn't change the taxes or activities, and it doesn't change the foreign tax on foreign activities. it only changes when they want to bring the money home. it does impact. we would suggest we ought to put the focus on growth, comprehensive growth, the right regulatory energy policy, too, but this is the most important thing you can do if you want u.s. growth to pick up and accelraacce accelera accelerate, modernize. >> we want to thank you both for coming in. this will be a hot issue and interesting to see what the president does on his own and how much he's able to accomplish in this area of tax inversion. thank you both, gentlemen. up next, our power player of the week, ivanka trump, on w [ male announcer ] ours was the first modern airliner, revolutionary by every standard. and that became our passion. to always build something better,
10:54 am
airplanes that fly cleaner and farther on less fuel. that redefine comfort and connect the world like never before. after all, you can't turn dreams into airplanes unless your passion for innovation is nonstop. ♪ sleeps too cool? now sleep number has a solution that's as revolutionary as its beds. the amazing sleep number dualtemp layer works with any mattress brand it allows both of you to select your ideal temperature for better sleep. call or click now for this free $50 savings card and catalog. my husband both prefer different temperatures. he likes to have his side of the bed a little bit to warmer and i like to have mine a little bit cooler and we are finally sleeping better together. the sleep number dualtemp layer features active air technology which provides an evenly distributed flow of air that heats or cools each side to the temperature you prefer for head-to-toe comfort. everyone can sleep better at the perfect temperature
10:55 am
because the sleep number dualtemp layer works with any mattress brand. call now! call this number or click now for a free $50 savings card and catalog with price list. ask about your free 100-night in-home trial. call or click now. one of this country's most recognizable figures, but as we told you last fall, now she's making a name for herself with her own style and accomplishm t accomplishments. here's our power player of the week. >> irupt the feminine voice of an otherwise more masculine brand. >> at age 33, ivanka trump has grown into a force in his or right. executive vice president of the trump organization, she also
10:56 am
runs the ivanka trump collection of women's clothes and accessories which will make $250 million this year. and she's a larger than life presence in new york social scene. how is it to be donald trump's daughter? >> i happen to be lucky in any pressure he puts on me i put on myself probably five times more. >> ivanka, congratulations to you and your team, and you better do a good job or you're fired. >> ivanka and her dad were in washington last fall to announce plans to turn the old post office pavilion a few blocks from the white house into a luxury hotel. and yes, she has inherited her dad's gift for promotion. >> there's nothing comparable to this building. you just couldn't build it today. >> ivanka was eight months pregnant when we talked, but that didn't stop her from traveling to washington or from all her work at the trump organization. >> i'll be involved from the acquisition to the financing to the development and execution,
10:57 am
whether it be announcing a new superluxury golf koersh in dubai or a project in istanbul or a hotel in beijing. there's a tremendous amount to keep us busy. >> ivanka graduated from the wharton school of business in the university of pennsylvania, but as the daughter of a man who wrote the art of the deal, she acknowledges it's also in her genes. what is it about the deal that excites you? >> it's not the money, the dance of negotiation. you have to be very intuitive to read the person that you're working with or against or in partnership or in concert with. >> are there some advantages to being a woman in the boardroom? >> people will be less prepared when meeting with me than they are when they are meeting with my father. that is to my benefit. >> she said one thing she loves about a project is when it's done, you see people using it, enjoying what she worked on for years, from planning to financing to construction. >> real estate is particularly
10:58 am
exciting for me because it's tangible. so many people operaraerate in similar way, buying assets they don't own outside of paper. ultimately at the end of the day, if you have executed, it's there and it represents the labors in a very real and tangible way. >> last october, ivanka and her husband welcomed joseph into their family, and the trumps were back in washington last month for the groundbreaking of the old post office project. and that's it for today. have a great week. and we'll see you next "fox news sunday."
10:59 am
11:00 am
>> announcer: the following is a paid presentation for the nutribullet brought to you by nutribullet llc. special tv offer. stay tuned to find out how you can get the nutribullet superfood nutrition extractor free! that's right. get the complete nutribullet system free! details just ahead. >> my muscle aches, my back aches really started to decrease significantly in one week. >> first night that i actually used the nutribullet, i actually slept really well. that was exciting. that was phenomenal. >> the bad cholesterol which was 290 went down to 190. >> before you turn to drugs, plea

63 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on